Egypt: Like to thank our Peru for tabling this resolution. We’d like to insert “safety” before public health in the title of the resolution.
Russia: Does the title of the resolution link with its text? Why are conventions on crime mentioned in PP1?
Peru: We feel there is an implicit link between crime reduction and prevention policies which reduce drug consumption.
Egypt: We agree with Russia. Prevention is not usually linked with crime in this way.
Peru: Happy to delete.
PP2: No comments.
PP3: No comments.
PP4: No comments.
PP5: No comments.
PP6: No comments.
Egypt: Insert “with social causes and consequences” after disorder.
Australia: Change to “psychosocial”.
Egypt: Add “of drug abuse” after prevention.
US: We prefer “prevention of drug use”, rather than “abuse”, which we feel is stigmatising.
PP8: No comments
Egypt: Insert “that takes into account individuals, communities and society as a whole” after “family level”. Finish PP with “as part of a comprehensive, integrated and balanced approach”.
UK: “comprehensive” repeated twice in same sentence.
Egypt: The second “comprehensive” refers to drug control policy as a whole, rather than prevention.
Australia: I think it’s fine to have it twice.
Russia: Change first “comprehensive” to “scientific, evidence-based”.
Australia: Maybe just leave it as comprehensive.
Egypt: For readability, “comprehensive approach to drug use prevention”?
Australia: I think that makes it less readable.
Egypt: Rearrange the sentence?
UK: We’d prefer not to redraft at this level. Keep “including” a gender perspective… We’ve just lost “communities” there too. That’s the problem.
Chair: Yes, I think we should stick to the substance here. We’re using up valuable time.
Peru: We agree. It was already discussed in informals.
Chair: Let’s go back to this PP.
Russia: I’d like to take out “local, cultural” and leave only “socioeconomic circumstances”.
Egypt: “one of the most cost-effective approaches”.
Australia: “can be a cost-effective approach”.
Colombia: A reference to women would be appropriate, along with the part about children and families.
Egypt: “communities and societies”, please.
Holy See: Just to applaud the inclusion of families in this PP and the previous one.
Egypt: What level are we talking about with “international cooperation”?
Peru: A range of aspects – maybe let’s defer to the experts on this.
Chair: I think it’s a general comment. No need to edit?
Australia: I agree.
Egypt: Insert “to assist member states to establish comprehensive, integrated and balanced strategies and policies, in accordance with national legislation”. And we take out all the rest.
Chair: I don’t object to this. But it does alter the meaning a bit.
US: I don’t think this really helps.
Chair: I think we’re missing the concept of cause and effect now.
Peru: It seems that the original wording was better. Egypt made a valid suggestion but we think originally it said all the right things.
Egypt: This has some national aspects involved. So the international cooperation need to refer national drug strategies.
Chair: Let’s discuss this later.
Egypt: Insert “as appropriate with information that can assist in designing” rather than “with the evidence needed to design”.
Russia: Take out “other actors”.
UK: Think we need to keep civil society in, otherwise people might think they are relevant stakeholders.
Guatemala: We think the same as the UK on this. Would also like to insert “prevention strategies” rather than “control strategies”, because the resolution is about that issue.
Egypt: We should say “drug abuse prevention strategies” in that case.
Australia: We’d be preventing any use, not just abuse. Which I think is what Egypt wants, but is not conveyed with that change.
PP13: No comments.
Egypt: “applicable” human rights obligations.
US: Not all member states are signatories to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. So change to “particularly for States Parties”.
France: We should avoid any language that might create the impression that the rights of the child only exist where there are States party to the convention.
US: We’ll have consult on all of this outside.
Chair: That’s fine. There are three PPs now to be discussed outside.
Australia: “and their characteristics” doesn’t make sense in English.
UNODC: Yes this part has moved. It makes sense if you move it back.
US: There’s a mention of alcohol in PP4. This is not something that the UNODC deals with. I’d remove it.
US: Text should be “illicit use of drugs” rather than “use of illicit drugs” because we’re not just talking about scheduled substances.
Russia: Keep in reference to “eliminate” adverse consequences. That is the agreed language of the 2009 Political Declaration.
Australia: “effectively address”? That would get round the consequences issue.
The Netherlands: “The use of illicit drugs” is accepted language from the 2009 Political Declaration.
Egypt: “On the basis of the best available scientific evidence”? Who decides which is best. How about “Taking into account available scientific evidence, and the continued evaluation of national responses”?
UK: “Best available” is preferable. There are times when you must go with the scientific consensus.
Russia: I’d like to retain the word “scientific”.
Peru: We went through all OPs during lunch, and we think we’ve come to an agreement. Re: OP1, “Encourages member states to continue developing, and updating, national policies”.
Mexico: Our experts have told us that programmes linked to families are proven to be effective, so could we put “families” back in?
Peru: That’s fine.
Peru: “encourages Member States…”
Peru: “invites Member States to share their advances in prevention policies and strategies and their effectiveness to promote…”
Peru: After “illicit use of drugs”, delete brackets and put “and its adverse consequences”.
OP5: No comments.
OP6: No comments.
OP7: No comments.
Peru: “Urges governments to address the misuse of pharmaceuticals by formulating and implementing effective, scientific, evidence-based prevention strategies, as appropriate, in accordance with the three international drug conventions.” Delete the rest.
OP9: No comments.
Peru: Minor edits.
Pakistan: We would like to retain OP10 bis. We think it’s important to reiterate the need for a variety of authorities in this approach.
Russia: We support Pakistan with this change. We think there should be a law enforcement angle.
Morocco: We support Pakistan’s proposal.
Algeria: The contents of this OP are very important for my delegation.
Sweden: We don’t think law enforcement belongs here. And we don’t want to open up a whole list of different agencies.
Australia: Perhaps a compromise: change “including” to “such as”?
Ecuador: We would prefer this OP to be taken out. We think that drawing up a list runs the risk of leaving out important issues.
UK: We support Ecuador’s proposal and Sweden’s.
Estonia: We support Sweden’s comments.
Australia: We would support the inclusion of law enforcement.
Chile: We support Sweden’s proposal to not list different authorities. Australia’s suggestion of “such as” is acceptable, though.
China: We’d like to retain this OP, as amended by Australia. We think Australia’s analysis has its merits.
Egypt: Maybe add “as appropriate” after law enforcement authorities, to cater for the fact that not every member state uses enforcement in prevention.
Pakistan: Can use “drug use prevention programmes”. Can delete “as appropriate” – that weakens it.
Peru: I’ve just confirmed with my colleague from Pakistan that “as appropriate” is OK.
Egypt: That’s fine with us. We were just trying to bridge the gap between the two of them.
Holy See: Change “parents” to “families”.
Chair: That’s fine.
OP11: No comments
Peru: Instead of evidence based, we want effective. And instead of vulnerable , we want specific.
Russia: we would like to take out paying specific attention to the protection of venerable groups.
Chair: We need an expert to comment. Youth on internet are venerable, but I’m not an expert.
Australia: We discussed this. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that young psycho-social and social issues. Sometimes prevention activity does focus on these groups. We should have an illustrative example.
Russian: we are happy with the proposal of specific groups, such as youth and specific groups.
Chair: Op.12 agreed. Can we now move to op14. ? Yes.
Guatemala: My delegation is pleased with the basis of this paragraph. We are concerned by the link established between social exclusion and criminal activities. Can we remove “and criminal activities” and instead add the term “and”, after poverty.
Peru: We understand the concerns. But this was not about social exclusion.
Guatemala: we would like the change to be made.
Chair: thanks for flexibility shown. Let’s move to op. 15.
Peru: Small change, instead of preventive, can we put preventative.
Chair: No objections as of yet. Move to pp.16 .
Peru: can we put in “for for such as”, and delete “the united nations entity for gender equality…” , but keep from “joint united nations”
Russian: we would like to remove list of international organisations.
Sweden: we would prefer to have the list included.
France: we would like to keep the list.
Peru: we have already shortened the list, we would appreciate keeping this the same.
Chile: I would also like to support what was said by Sweden, Peru and France. Can we agree to this already shortened list.
Turkey: we don’t have any prejudice for education institutions. We want to add “subject to their domestic law”.
Russian Federation: we can retain UNODC and other organisations.
Colombia: Thankyou very much madame chair. as someone who did not take part in the informals, I note from the outside that compromise efforts have been made. Can we at least include reference to to organisation listed here, who have a pretty significant role.
Australia: with turkeys suggestion, can we subject to national legislation, to broaden this definition.
Chair: I think this is a good suggestion.
Egypt: In order to accommodate the concerns of everyone involved. “encourage member states to cooperate” – with the “UNODC” and in collaboration with – UNODC and other within their respected mandates.
Sweden: I would like to be flexible. We know that important work is being done specifically between the collaboration between WHO, UNESCO and UNODC. We could work on finding a language alongside the lines of Egypt.
Chair: We are getting some more compromised drafting now. Peru?
Peru: we would like to lose “UNESCO”.
Egypt: “encourage member states, subject to their domestic legislation, to enhance cooperation with the UNODC, in collaboration with civil society, and other relevant international organisations […] within their respective mandates […] after “prevention programmes”, add “university, schools, other educational institutions”
Chair: can we leave in the organisations?
Sweden: In the spirit of compromise, I am happy to lose the list.
Chair: let us go back without the mentioning. Does this reflect the agreement made over the lunch hour?
France: I think we should revert back because this suggestion implies that UNODC only colloaborate with civil society… can we suggest “programmes within the united nations system”
Russian: I am happy with this suggestion. But we think maybe better with “according to their mandate”.
Chair: does the last part stand?
Russian: from a grammatical point of view, add “subject” added to their domestic legislation.
Finland: We like what Sweden proposed. Can we add “various…”
Australia: Want to help the english flow. “To develop prevention programmes […] which includes guidance on effective strategies on effective strategies in communities and various school settings” Add “prevention” betwwen effective and strategies.
Chair: op. 16 agreed. let’s move onto op.17.
Peru: add includes.
Australia: includes with an S
Russia: Not about 17, but about 14 if I may. One word.
Chair: ok, I am thinking about it because I was ready to close. Only one word?
Russia: add here, after exclusion, “might contribute “, not “contribute”.
Australia: Can contribute. might too vague.
Russia: Could contribute if I may.
Chair: agreed. Op. 17. This concludes consideration of resolution L11. I am very pleased. Here is the financial component of UNODC.
UNODC: with regards to this resolution. Can we draw attention to op.17. We would require $70,000 to provide a report in seven language. We need a resolution to ensure that the budgetary resources are made available.
Australia: wishes to co-sponsor this resolution.
Egypt: can we bring back op1. This is important for my country.
eliminate “innovative approaches”.
(microphone left on. Sweden tells Egypt that they could not read handwriting.)
Russia: we agree to these changes.
Chair: this goes forward to the Plenary. Let’s have 5 minutes break.